Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Anantha Padmaja vs Central Excise &Amp Customs on 24 June, 2019
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
OA/21/1225/2016 (MA/21/467/2018 & MA/21/418/2019), OA/21/438/2017 &
OA/21/704/2017 (MA/21/730/2017, MA/21/36/2018)
Dated: 24/06/2019
Between
OA/21/1225/2016
1. K. Anantha Padmaja
Aged about 50 years
W/o. P.H.M.V.Narayana Sarma
Occ : Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. Flat No. 403, Vishnu vardhan Abode
Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad
2. B.C.K.Raju
Aged about 52 yrs
S/o B.V.Rao
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
R/o Flat No. 301, Deeksha Towers, St.No.7
Kartikeya Nagar, Hyderabad-76
3. V. Ravi
Aged abount 53 yrs
S/o V.Gopala Rao
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
R/o H.No. 12-11-1595/18
Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad -44
4. B.S.Prasad
Aged about 51 yrs
S/o B.S.K.Sastry
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
R/o H.No. 1-8-499/2
Chikkadpalli, Hyderabad -20
5. N.Bhaskar Chowdary
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
Aged about 46 yrs
S/o. M.Rama Naidu
Occ. Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. Flat No.402, Gandikota Apartments
Prashanti Hills,
Khazaguda, Hyderabad
6. R.V.S.Sriramakrishna
Aged about 44 yrs
S/o. R.V. Narasimha Rao
Occ. Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. Fla No.824, Block No.8, Lotus Akash Apts
Kedareswarpet, Vijayawada
7. D.V.K.Kishore
Aged about 43 yrs
S/o Sreerama Murthy
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
On deputation with DRI, Hyderabad
R/o. Flat No. 207, SS Heights,
Gokul Nagar, Taranaka
Secunderabad.
8. Y.S.S.Ravi Kumar
Aged about 45 yrs
S/o. Late. Y.Isaiah
Occ. Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. Flat T-2, Samskruthi Prangan,
Baba Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad - 76
9. N. Ramesh
Aged about 45 yrs
S/o. N.Venkateswara Pillai
Occ. Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs
R/o. Flat No.202, Dasarathulu Apts
Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad
10. Ravi Dacha
Aged about 48 yrs
S/o D.Srihari
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
On deputation with Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
R/o. Plot No. 34, Chandra Nagar Colony,
Rasoolpura, Secunderabad -3.
11. B.Raja Sekhar
Aged about 52 yrs
S/o. B.Gopala Rao
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
R/o H.No. 5-12-222/22,Flat No. 104, Sr Eswari Enclave
Mangapuram Colony, Moula-ali, Hyderabad -40
12. Chaganti Srinivas
Aged about 53 yrs
S/o. C.Subba Rao
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
R/o H.No. 2-2-186/5/1/2/A
Ramkrishna Nagar
Bagh Amber pet, Hyderabad
13. K.Raghu Rama Rao
Aged about 45 yrs
S/o K.Gopinath Rao
Occ. Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. H.No. 12-138, Adarsh Nagar, Opp.IDPL Colony
Balanagar, Hyderabad- 37
14. L.N.Usha Devi
Aged about 46 yrs
W/o S.Nagaraja Rao
Occ : Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. Flat No.302, Sree Sree Heights
Ramalayam Street, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 72
15. Mohd. Khalid
Aged about 49 yrs
S/o. Adbul Hameed
Occ. Inspector of Central Excise
R/o Flat No. 102, Sajid Plaza, H.No. 2-5-27/5/402
Upparpally, Hyderabad -48
16. R.Ganesh
Aged about 50 yrs
S/o. Late R.Radhakrishnan
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
Occ: Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. 7-80/2/58,Vekataramana Colony,
Phase I, Dammaiguda, Hyderabad
17. B.C.A. Bali Reddy
Aged about 57 yrs
S/o Late.B.C.A.Pedda Subba Reddy
Occ: Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. 2nd Floor, Aditi Crystal
Near Madras Bus stand, Nellore
18. P.V.A.Narasimham
Aged about 52 yrs
S/o.Late. P Rama Krishna Rao
Occ:superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. 2nd Floor, Aditi Crystal
Near Madras Bus stand, Nellore
19. K.N.Anil Kumar
Aged about 52 yrs
S/o Late. T.K.N.Nair
Occ: Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. Flat No.101, Crystal Classic
20. K.Lakshmi
Aged about 52 yrs
W/o. S.Venkateshan
Occ. Superintendent of Central Excise
21. B.Mallikarjuna
Aged about 51 yrs
S/o Late B.Nagabhushanam Chetty
Occ:Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o Flat No. 404B, Sree Balaji Enclave
Patel Nagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
22. Vedula Krishna
Aged about 53 yrs
S/o. V.S.S.Sarma
Occ: Inspector of Central Excise
R/o. D.NO. 15-1-135, Bhavana Enclave
Nowroji Road, Maharani Peta, Visakhapatnam.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
23. K.V.V. Subramanyam
Aged about 54 yrs
S/o. Late. K.A.Rama Sastry
occ: Superintendent of Central Excise
R/o. D.No.12-2-41, Dantuvari Street,
Suryarao pet, Kakinada
24. Sri V.Viswanadham,
Aged about 46 Years
S/o Late V.V.V.Satyanarayana
Occ: Superintendent of Central Excise
O/o Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Guntur Division.
4/17 Brodieptet, Guntur (A.P)
25. Sri Chavali Prasad,
Aged about 46 Years,
S/o C.Trilokanandha dattu
Occ: Superintendent of Central Excise & Service Tax
O/o Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise,
Divisional Office, D.No: 24A-13-2, Yerrapragada Vari Street,
Near Ashoka Sthupam, Ashok Nagar,
Eluru (A.P) 534002
R/o. Ground Floor, Nikhil Residency, Santhi Nagar 1st Road
Eluru, A.P
26. Smt P. Kanaka Durga,
Aged about 42 Yrs
W/o Sri V.Shyam Kumar
Occ:Inspector of Central Excise & Service Tax
O/o Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Hqrs.Office, Kannavari thota, Guntur(A.P)
27. Smt B.Anitha,
Aged about 45 Yrs
W/o Sri Y.Koteswara Rao
Occ: Inspector of Central Excise & Service Tax
O/o Superintendent of Service Tax , Range-II, Guntur,
Guntur Division, 4/17 Brodieptet, Guntur (A.P).
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
28. Sri Chopparapu Suresh Babu,
Aged about 53 Yrs,
S/o Ch.Raghavaiah
Occ: Inspector of Customs
O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate
Hqrs.Office, 55-17-3,C-14,2nd Floor Industrial Estate,Autonagar,
Vijayawada (A.P)-520007
R/o. H.No. 1-38, Yakamuru(village),Thotlavalluru mandal
Krishna Dist, A. P
29. Sri Alapati Srinivas,
Aged about 52 Years,
S/o A.Prabhakara Rao,
Occ:Inspector of Customs
O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate
Hqrs.Office, 55-17-3,C-14,2nd Floor Industrial Estate,Autonagar,
Vijayawada (A.P)-520007
R/o.H.No. 7-93/1, flat No.1112, A Block
Dolphine Shelters, Kanuru, Vijayawada
30. Sri Mikkilineni Srinivas,
Aged about 50 Years,
S/o M.Venkataratnam
Occ:Inspector of Customs
O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate
Hqrs.Office, 55-17-3,C-14,2nd Floor Industrial Estate,Autonagar,
Vijayawada (A.P)-520007
R/o. H.No.2-12-110, Rajyalakshmi Nagar,
Pattabhipuram, Guntur - 522006
...Applicants
AND
1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi 110 011.
2. Central Board of Excise
Represented by its Chairman
Ministry of Finance
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
North Block,
New Delhi 110 011.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Customs
And Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad Zone
Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road
Bahseerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004.
4. The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and
Service Tax, Commissionerate - I, Hyderabad Zone
Hyderabad - 500 004.
...Respondents
OA/21/438/2017
1. C.S. Rajendran, S/o. C.S. Sarvanan,
Aged about 51 years,
Occ: Inspector, Customs & Central Excise,
Dept. of O/o. Dy. Commissioner of Customs,
Customs Commissionerate,
RGIA, Shamshabad,
Hyderabad.
2. Cyril Joseph, S/o. Roche Joseph,
Aged 49 years, Occ: Inspector,
Customs & Central Excise Dept.,
O/o. Deputy Commissioner of Customs,
ICD, Customs Commissionerate,
Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.
... Applicants
And
1. The Union of India,
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi rep. by its
Deputy Secretary/ Under Secretary.
2. The Central Board of Customs and Central Excise,
New Delhi rep. by its Chairman.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
3. Chief Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise Dept.,
Hyderabad Zone, Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
4. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise,
Hyderabad - I Commissionerate,
Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
5. N.C. Veera Raghava,
Inspector of Central Excise Department,
Service Tax Commissionerate,
Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
6. K. Sai Prasad,
Inspector of Central Excise Department,
Hyderabad-III Commissionerate,
Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
... Respondents
OA/21/704/2017
1. Dhulipala Gopichand,
S/o. D. Siva Satyanarayana,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Enforcement Officer (On deputation),
(lien is in the cadre of inspector of Central Taxes
Department, Hyderabad),
O/o. the Directorate of Enforcement,
Shakkar Bhavan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
2. Maskani Ramesh,
S/o. M. Satyanarayana,
Aged 40 years, Occ: Inspector of Central Taxes,
O/o the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes,
Sri Sai Nivas, Excise Colony, Warangal Division,
Warangal.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
3. Parupalli Ananda Rao,
S/o. P. Bhadrachalam,
Aged 39 years, Occ: Inspector of Central Taxes,
O/o the Commissioner of Central Taxes (Audit),
Port Area, Visakhapatnam.
... Applicants
And
1. Union of India rep. by
The Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Dept. of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Excise and Customs,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs,
GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad.
4. The Principal Commissioner,
Central Taxes, Hyderabad Commissionerate,
GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. J. Sudheer ( in O.A. 1225/2016)
Mr. N. Vijay
(in OA 438/2017)
Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad
( in OA 704/2017)
Counsel for the Respondents : Mrs. L. Pranathi Reddy, Addl. CGSC
(in OAs 1225/2016 & 704/2017)
Mr. Siva ( for pvt. Respondents
in OAs 1225/16 & 438/17)
Mr. R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao,
Sr. PC to CG (in OA438/2017)
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
CORAM :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
ORAL ORDER
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman) In this batch of O.As, a speaking order passed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs ( for short, CBIC), conveyed through a covering letter dated 27.7.2016 and the proposal to convene a review DPC for the cadre of Inspector, contained in proceedings dated 8.11.2016 by the O/o the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad, are challenged.
2. The relevant facts in brief, are as under:
The applicants joined the service of the Customs & Central Excise department in Clerical cadre. Under the Recruitment Rules, which were in force up to 7.12.2002, the promotion to the post of Inspector in the department, to the extent of 25% of the vacancies, was from the eligible Clerical cadre; and 75% by Direct Recruitment. Through the amendment to the Rules, effective from 7.12.2002, apart from the Clerical cadre, the Data Entry Operators (DEOs) were also made eligible for promotion against the 25% vacancies, of Inspector.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
3. The Government re-structured the various cadres in the department. Many posts in the cadre of Inspector were upgraded to the posts of Superintendent. As a result, the number of posts in the cadre of Inspector got reduced, to the extent, those in the higher cadre were increased. Apart from re-structuring, new posts were also sanctioned in various cadres, including gthat of Inspectors.
4. Promotions were not effected for quite some time, before 2002. The applicants felt aggrieved by their non-consideration. When steps were being taken by the department to fill the vacancies that existed before the amendment exclusively with the Clerical cadre, as per the unamended Rules, the DEOs felt aggrieved and filed O.A. No.1362/2002 before this Tribunal. The O.A. was allowed through order dated 17.04.2002. Challenging the same, the Union of India filed Writ Petition No.7963/2004 & batch before the Hon'ble High Court. Some of the applicants herein also filed Writ Petitions. The batch of Writ Petitions was allowed through an elaborate judgement dated 2.3.2005, rendered by a Division of the High Court. It was held that the vacancies that existed before the date of amendment, shall be filled, on the basis of unamended Rules. The matter is said to be now pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
5. The applicants herein, were promoted to the post of Inspectors through an order dated 2.6.2006 w.e.f. 6.12.2002.
6. A similar issue arose for consideration in the Bombay Commissionerate. Some of the Clerical staff, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.454/2006, claiming relief, on par with the one, granted by the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in Writ Petition No. 7963/2004 & batch. A question arose as to whether, the vacancies in the post of Inspector that arose on account of upgradation in the re-structuring, are available to be filled with the Clerical Cadre, by applying the unamended Rules. The assertion of the applicants therein was negatived and the O.A. was dismissed through order dated 6.6.2007. The promotions were, however effected, almost as desired by the applicants in OA 454/2016, and were not made available for DEOs. That in turn, was challenged by the DEOs, by filing O.A. No. 510/2007 before the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. through its order dated 16.12.2010. It is stated that though Writ Petition No.298/2013 was filed by Union of India against the said order before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was withdrawn at a later point of time.
7. Certain DEOs, the private respondents in these O.As, made representation to the Hyderabad Zone, with a request to implement the order of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in their case also stating that there is OA/21/1225/2016 & batch reverse to it, thus filed O.A 1135/2015. It was disposed of on 20.8.2015 with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation. It is in this context, that the speaking order dated 27.7.2016 was passed.
8. It was observed that the re-structuring has resulted in reduction of posts in the cadre of Inspector and enhancement in the cadre of Superintendent, but on a wrong notion, the posts of Inspector which stood reduced, consequent on upgradation, were also filled by the Clerical cadre, as though they were available, after the amended rules came into force. It was decided to conduct a review DPC, to undertake a fresh exercise and to re- allocate the posts. As a step towards that, the review DPC was proposed to be conducted through order dated 8.11.2016.
9. The applicants contend that the issue as regards their entitlement to be promoted as Inspectors, was finally decided by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Petition No. 7963/2004, and not only orders of promotion were issued but also their seniority was fixed. They contend that once those steps were taken, it was not permissible to the respondents to re-open the issue. It is also stated that several issues relevant to the matter were not placed before the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal, and even otherwise, the judgement rendered therein was specific to the effect that the accrued rights cannot be taken away, and the entire action is violative of principles of natural justice.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
10. The department on the one hand and the private respondents on the other hand, filed separate counter affidavits. They submit that the applicants were entitled, only to be considered for promotion against the vacancies that were available as on 7.12.2002, and much before that, the re-structuring has taken place, resulting in substantial reduction of the posts of Inspectors, and on account of a patent mistake, the posts that were upgraded to Superintendent, were also filled through Clerical cadre, as though they were available. They contend that the mistake was specifically pointed out by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal and the principle applies to similar situations all over India. The various contentions advanced by the applicants are also opposed.
11. We heard Sri J. Sudheer and Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel for the applicants. They submit that the promotions to their clients were ordered on the basis of the elaborate judgement rendered by th Hon'ble A.P. High Court and the impugned orders have the effect of taking away their accrued rights. They submit that the correspondence that ensured between the various authorities, clearly indicates that the vacancies which arose on account of promotion from the posts of Inspector, albeit, as a measure of re-structuring, are also available for promotion of the Clerical staff and the department has, unfortunately, taken a completely different stand. They further submit that the very claim by the DEOs was, not only untenable but also belated, and the OA/21/1225/2016 & batch respondents ought not to have acted upon that. They contend that the mere observation as regards the consideration of the applicants, was taken as though it was a positive direction, and the impugned orders are issued.
12. Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the official respondents and Sri Siva, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, on the other hand submit that the very promotion ordered against the posts that were upgraded to the posts of Superintendent while re- structuring, was totally untenable. They contend that the re-structuring became effective from 19.7.2001 and by the time, the amended Rules came into effect, the number of posts in the cadre of Inspector, which were upgraded to the posts of Superintendent, stood abolished, and the promotion of some of the applicants, against such abolished posts was totally impermissible in law. It is also stated that once the promotions are found to be untenable, the corrective steps need to be undertaken, and in addition to that, the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal has analysed the entire issue objectively, and issued certain directions. They submit that the order passed by the Bombay Bench, has become final and the applicants therein did not choose to challenge the same.
13. The issue started way back in the year 2002, consequent upon the amendment of the Rules on 7.12.2002. Quite a good number of vacancies OA/21/1225/2016 & batch were available in the cadre of Inspectors, by the time the new Rules came into force. It has already been mentioned that the Rules brought about a change as regards the feeder category for promotion to the posts of Inspector. Earlier it was exclusively the Clerical staff and through the amendments, the DEOs were also made eligible. The question was as to whether the vacancies that were available as on 7.12.2002, were to be filled on the basis of amended, or unamended Rules. The department took the view that the vacancies that remained as on 7.12.2002 must be filled, in accordance with the unamended Rules. The DEOs felt aggrieved and filed O.A.1362/2002. That was allowed, but the Hon'ble High Court reversed the same and held that the vacancies that were available before the date of amendment, must be filled as per the unamended Rules. Accordingly, the promotions were effected and the applicants were promoted w.e.f. 6.12.2002 i.e. a day before amended Rules came into force.
14. The judgement of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court is now under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Barring that, there were no other grievances or counter grievances between the DEOs on the one hand, and the Clerical Staff, on the other. On the other hand, all of them were promoted, but at various stages.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
15. The developments that have taken place in the Bombay Commissionerate, gave rise to a semblance of hope, and right; for the DEOs in Hyderabad Commissionerate as well. They filed a representation, citing the judgement of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal and prayed for implementation of the same in Hyderabad Commissionerate also. When that was not acted upon, they filed O.A. No.1135/2015 and it was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation. The impugned order is the result thereof.
16. The speaking order dated 27.7.2016 runs into six closely typed pages, and it has referred to various developments that have taken place ever since the cadre re-structuring has been effected, and the Rules were amended. The judgements of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal were referred to, extensively. The following anomalies were noticed in the entire episode;
"13. The Board has examined the issue in question and observed that 449 posts of Inspector which have been upgraded to the post of Superintendent are no longer available in the grade of Inspector prior to re-structuring. Hence, filling up of these 449 vacancies of Inspector on the basis of 1979 RRs of Inspector is not in order. It is further observed that the promotion of officers of Ministerial cadre to the Inspector w.e.f. 7.12.2002 is not in order.
14. Thus, in Cadre Control, Hyderabad Zone, there was similar situation to the extent that during implementation of cadre re- structuring (CR) exercise 2000, the sanctioned strength of Superintendents was enhanced from 300 to 669 and sanctioned strength of Inspectors was decreased from 1200 to 1007 and hence 369 posts were upgraded.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
15. Further, as per the DoPM brouchure the sanctioned strength in the grade of Inspector in Hyderabad Zone as on 1.1.1999 is as under:
S.No. Name of Central Sanctioned strength of
Excise Inspectors according to DoPM
Commissionerate Brochure as on 01.01.1999
1 Hyderabad-I 310
2 Hyderabad-II 181
3 Hyderabad-III 221
4 Guntur 226
5 Vizag 262
Total 1200
16. Now, since the Ministry has taken conscious decision that the upgraded posts of Inspector to higher grade are no longer available and stands abolished even on 6.12.2002 and it would be illegal to fill up these posts. This unintentional error can be rectified only by conducting review DPCs from 6.12.2002 onwards.
17. Only 831 posts existed as sanctioned strength of Inspectors at Hyderabad Cadre Control after July, 2002 due to upgradation of 369 of higher grade. Sanction of 176 posts shall come into force on 7.12.2002 to raise the sanctioned strength to 1007. Hence, the said 369 posts which were upgraded were no longer considered for promotion to the cadre of Inspectors from the feeder cadres. But as 176 nos. Of additional posts of inspectors were allotted to Hyderabad Zone, the net effect was 193 posts (369-176-193 Nos) only could not be considered for promotion. Any deviation from this position that was adopted in the past (during the DPCs consequent to cadre restructuring 2002) would warrant review of all the relevant DPCs. Further, the seniority fixation of feeder cadres is to be finalized as on 20.01.2003 i.e., date of notification of STA Recruitment Rules by applying Rule 5 of STA Recruitment Rules, 2003 and consideration list for above DPC is to be finalized by applying Rule 5(ii) of General OA/21/1225/2016 & batch Principle of Seniority dated 2.12.1959 as promotions for Inspector grade is to be made from different feeder cadre.
Ultimately, it was observed as under:
18. In view of the foregoing facts, circumstances and discussions, the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone is advised to implement the orders of the Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No.510/2007 in Hyderabad Zone."
17. The facts and figures speak for themselves. The sanctioned strength for the post of Inspector in Hyderabad Zone was 831 before the re-structuring was done. In the process of re-structuring, 369 posts of Inspector were upgradated to the posts of Superintendent. On the other hand, 176 posts of Inspector were sanctioned. The enhanced strength of Inspectors was 193 [369-176]. It appears that in the process of implementation of the judgement of the High Court, not only the enhanced strength of 176 posts but also the 369 posts, which were upgraded to the posts of Superintendent, were treated as available, and promotions were effected, exclusively of the Clerical staff.
18. On the one hand, the posts, which in fact did not exist, were filled. On the other hand, the posts which arose almost along with the amendments to the rules, were filled under the unamended Rules. These anomalies are sought to be corrected.
OA/21/1225/2016 & batch
19. The correspondence that took place between various authorities in the department, unfortunately, makes a sad reflection. The orders that have emanated from the Board, from time to time are clear in their purport. However, the understanding of the same by the different Commissionerates was a bit different. That resulted in certain anomalies and now steps are being taken to correct them.
20. We would have certainly gone deep into the various aspects pleaded by the parties, but for the fact that, that exercise is not going to result in reversion of anyone. At the most it would result in adjustment of places in the seniority list. Even there, such of the Clerical employees, who were promoted against the vacancies of Inspectors, which in fact were not available at that time, would be entitled to be considered in the subsequent vacancies, in preference to their juniors in the category of DEOs. The difference would be very minimal at the ground level. That would become evident, if only the whole exercise is undertaken with reference to the actual vacancies that were available, and the entitlement of the persons in the feeder category. In case, the exercise results in any detriment to the applicants or any of them, they deserve to be put on notice.
21. During the pendency of the O.A., proceedings dated 25.3.2017 were issued on the basis of the approved gradation list dated 1.1.2014, proposing to OA/21/1225/2016 & batch change the places on the applicants on the one hand and the contesting respondents on the other hand, stating to be in compliance with the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the order of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. The applicants have to put forward their contentions, once the exercise contemplated under the impugned orders is completed. If the final seniority list result in change of their places vis-a-vis their juniors, the same deserves to be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks.
22. We, therefore, dispose of the O.As, directing that:
a) It would be open to the respondents to take steps indicated in the impugned order dated 27.7.2016.
However, if the exercise is going to result in any detriment of whatever form, to the applicants or any of them, the respondents shall be under obligation to put them on notice, before the decision is implemented.
b) The applicants shall be entitled to put forward their
objections and contentions in response to the
proceedings dated 25.3.2017 issued on basis of the approved gradation list dated 1.1.2014, within four weeks from today. The respondents shall pass a speaking order, duly taking into account, the OA/21/1225/2016 & batch contentions advanced by the applicants, within a period of two months thereafter. However, if the same results in change of the places of the applicants in the seniority list to their detriment, the same shall not be implemented for a period of four weeks.
23. It is observed that since the issue has wide ramifications, the feasibility of obtaining the approval of the Board for any decision in this behalf, shall be considered.
24. MAs shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) (JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY) MEMBER (ADMN.) CHAIRMAN pv